Chipper Jones and John McCain...

are both punks.

Chipper for not playing due to a sore shoulder, while trying to ride out a 12 point lead for the NL batting crown over Pujols. Of course, we will see if Chipper comes back after Pujols catches him with the his continued fire run towards Chipper.


McCain for just being a jackass. I can't get over the lunacy that is the McCain economic plan. To catch you up --- Earmarks are evil, I hate earmarks and will make those who try to pass them famous, ergo I will give tax cuts to rich folks and this will make the world a much better place. And this is all related to the economic crisis..., but how, John?

Also, both Obama and McCain (honestly, much more so McCain) are driving me nuts with the poor little innocent Georgia bit. Come the hell on boys, Georgia ain't your innocent little sister here. Sure, Russia took advantage of Georgia, but Saakashvili kind of went looking for it.

Pakistan is the problem???

Or so says Hitchens. The most telling part of this column is the tacit endorsement that Obama has it right with regard to the need to leave on the table NATO's right to impinge on Pakistan's territory if need be. Also of note is the explanation of the name "Pakistan" itself, which is quite interesting.

I'm not sure that the U.S. is in the best position to argue for the need/right to impinge on Pakistan's turf, but if you accept that the war in Afghanistan is good, just, neccessary, or what have you - I think you would have to recognize that a primary reason the problems are escalating has to do with the Pakistani tribal areas. Of course, another issue in our protracted war in Afghanistan is highlighted in this month's Atlantic by Johnson and Mason. They point out that the counterinsurgency is thriving due to the NATO/American forces failure to properly address the local groups/clans as the primary arbiter of control in Afghanistan. They may just be on to something here.

Right Wing Orthodox...

Say what he will about the need to change Washington and how "greed" is causing the problems on Wall Street, McCain hasn't in the past and doesn't seem interested now in breaking with the right wing orthodoxy, who hold that derregulation is the answer to pretty well any economic question. Despite their resistance to government regulation, they don't seem to mind a government bailout now and again. Something like socializing the costs, while privatizing the profits.

But his record on the issue, and the views of those he has always cited as his most influential advisers, suggest that he has never departed in any major way from his party’s embrace of deregulation and relying more on market forces than on the government to exert discipline.

While Mr. McCain has cited the need for additional oversight when it comes to specific situations, like the mortgage problems behind the current shocks on Wall Street, he has consistently characterized himself as fundamentally a deregulator and he has no history prior to the presidential campaign of advocating steps to tighten standards on investment firms.

He has often taken his lead on financial issues from two outspoken advocates of free market approaches, former Senator Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman. Individuals associated with Merrill Lynch, which sold itself to Bank of America in the market upheaval of the past weekend, have given his presidential campaign nearly $300,000, making them Mr. McCain’s largest contributor, collectively.

History of supporting deregulation; takes advice from a key architect of the mortgage bubble (Greenspan); significant campaign donations from a failing financial firm; now that my friends is obviously setting the table for some REAL CHANGE.

Lies, Lies, Lies...

Krugman on the tenor of the GOP's lie infested campaign.

You're only telling lies, lies, lies...

Breaking us down with your lies, lies, lies...




Politics may not be pretty, but it doesn't have to be this baseless. Don't drink the Kool-Aid...

Hugo Chavez expels US Ambassador...

For those who have some hope that Hugo Chavez is more than an antagonistic authoritarian cloaked in leftist revolution, this isn't the best news.

But he said the presence of two Russian warplanes on Venezuelan soil for a training exercise "is a warning" to the rest of the world that Venezuela's allies include Russia and other countries.

Chavez added that, should any country in Latin America be overthrown, he would interpret that to be "the green light to undertake military operations of any sort in those countries, and restore power back to the people."

Expelling diplomats is only good for raising tensions in Latin America, as is the invitation of Russian warplanes into the arena. It would be nice to see a leader who is actually leading a socialist movement with coherence, but alas given Hugo's close relationship to authoritarian Russia and his near complete reliance on oil cash to stay afloat, I'm not sure he is the answer.

Flip flopper!!!

Mel-anon provides a solid, with his cogent point on the lunacy of "bridgegate," and how this really isn't a key issue. I cannot, however, to pliantly paraphrase the mythical George Washington, let a lie stand when it should go the way of the ole cherry tree.

The idea that Palin has always opposed the "bridge to nowhere" project is quite simply not true.



Feel free to dig into the record more if you wish, but please don't let yourself get persuaded that earmarks are somehow in the top ten issues for this election. Also, please point out the flaw in this argument when your pals make it -- you know that it isn't true.

I've always wondered...

how inflation effects "dollar" stores. NPR had the Last Word in Business on this topic this morning. Interesting... At some point, won't they have to go to the two dollar store? or the buck fifty?

Lost in exceptionalism...

It is not often that a book review makes me immediately place an order, but the Economist on Bacevich's new work, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism sent me to Amazon straightaway.

He claims that the constitution has been perverted by the expansion of the presidency and by national security, at the expense of Congress. Concluding that America’s military power “turns out to be quite limited”, he argues that the country “doesn’t need a bigger army. It needs a smaller—that is, more modest—foreign policy, one that assigns soldiers on missions that are consistent with their capabilities..."

He expresses his judgments, some grumpy, some anguished, in sharp, epigrammatic language. “A grand bazaar”, he writes, “provides an inadequate basis upon which to erect a vast empire.” Americans have recast the Jeffersonian trinity—life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—to read: “Whoever dies with the most toys wins”; “Shop till you drop”; and “If it feels good, do it.”

This could be very interesting. Maybe even enough so to get me to write a review?

McCain, Palin and the GOP

It has been a melancholic month or so here at the Donkey, but you really need to get over to Mel-Anon's site for his coverage on the Palin VP choice. The titles of the posts are alone worth dropping by... Junogate, genius! Perhaps the best post of the group on this topic is the analysis of shotgun weddings, which is an area of expertise for anyone from Montgomery Indiana.

What this means, of course, is that the kids born to these teenage mothers have to live with the fact that they were meant to be punishment for their parents' indiscretion. That seems like an awful lot to hang on a kid, since most people tend to resent their punishment. I'm not a psychologist, but I can't see how that's a positive situation.

I know that Obama has stated that the family is off limits, but this isn't about the daughter's actions, it is a much larger snapshot of the lunacy of the right wing moralists. By taking certain "moral" stances to be imperatives and uncompromisable, these folks flippantly ignore solutions to some of societies ills, such as unplanned pregnancies. It seems pretty obvious to me that offering safe sex education could signifcantly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, but of course if that succeeded the moralists may be forced to admit that their Victorian ideals are a bit dated...

It also seems obvious to me that McCain's choice is a rather lame sop to the social conservatives, who just couldn't get on board with a guy who had somewhat accurately posited that they were "agents of intolerance." To think that in 2000 I would have likely voted for McCain vs. Gore. I guess this shows how the will to power can drastically change a person's views.